Nigerian Breweries Plc. V. The Governor Of Oyo State & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of an Oyo State High Court delivered on the 17th of April, 2003.

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a company operating a brewery firm in Ibadan, Oyo State. 3rd Respondent by virtue of its Statutory Power served a demand notice for 2002 Business/Professional premises Registration/Renewal on the Appellant demanding the sum of Two Million Naira (N2M) as registration/renewal arrears of Business Premises between the years 1995 to 2002. As a result of the Appellant’s indebtedness in spite of the demand notice, a charge was preferred by 2nd Respondent against the Appellant in charge No. M1/BPR7/02 at an Ibadan Chief Magistrate Court. Appellant consequently instituted an action at the trial court through originating summons.

Appellant being the Plaintiff at the lower court sought the determination of two questions posed as follows:-

(a) Whether the Provisions of Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict, No. 19 of 1984 as Amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 together with Business and Professional Premises Registration or Renewal fees Regulations 1996 are not inconsistent and incompatible with the provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 1998.

(b) Whether the Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict, No.19 of 1984 as amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 together with Business and Professional Premises Registration or Renewal fees Regulations of 1996 are not null and void to the extent of their inconsistency and incompatibility with provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998.

The lower court answered the questions raised for determination in the negative and accordingly dismissed the originating summons. Dissatisfied with the decision, Appellant filed a notice of appeal dated 14th of May, 2003.

In line with the rules of this court, Appellant filed its brief of argument on the 8th of May, 2007 but deemed properly filed on the 20th of September, 2007 while the Respondents brief of argument was filed on 25/3/08 but deemed properly filed and served on the 2nd of April, 2008.

At the hearing of the appeal learned Counsel for the parties adopted and relied on their respective briefs of argument.

Appellant distilled two issues for determination from the five grounds of appeal filed in the amended noticed deemed properly filed on 20/9/07. The issues are stated hereunder:

(1) Whether the provisions of Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict No. 19 of 1984 as amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amended) Edict No. 11 of 1996 had not been repealed/abrogated by Taxes and levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998

(2) Whether the learned trial Judge can question the competence of the lawmaker in making Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998.

The Respondents distilled two issues for determination thus:

(i) Whether the Provisions of Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict No. 19 of 1984 as amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 together with Business and Professional Premises Registration or Renewal fees Regulation are repealed or abrogated by the Provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998